Henry Maxted

[Bookbox]

Stalwart job, HD. It will have taken a lot of your time. I’m sorry not to have contributed, due to lack of time this week.

A summary of the probate (extract 4) ...

On 11 December 1583, before Stephen Lakes, by the oaths of Thomas Cobb, gentleman, Thomas Watson and John Page witnesses, probate was granted to the executors who were sworn.

[MattD30]

From Page 2, Extract 1:

He gives to eldest son John his (the testator's) part of corn which he sowed in half shares with John.

Then:

...I will y^t Rob(er)t my son shall have at mich(aelmas) next the

ferm w(hi)^ch I have at Old [Wadestease?] of Sybill [Whyte?] wydowe

w(i)^th the p(ro)fytte of all suche fallowe as I have there uppon for

those three yeres w(hi)^ch my self should have the same by p(ro)myse...


Finally he gives the residue of his moveable goods unbequeathed (debts and legacies paid etc) to his wife Agnes.

He makes Agnes and his son Robert Maxsted the executors.

He makes Thomas Cobbes of Chilham his overseer.

I don't have time to tackle the next image now but will do so when I can.

Hiya

Thanks for that info. I wonder if "ferm" could be 'farm'? What do you think?

No rush for the rest of this as I'm already able  to build up a picture based on what you've managed to transcribe. Interestingly I have now found more Maxsted Wills which may include the Wills of his parents or other relatives.

Thanks again and I look forward to your next helpful bit of info.

Matt

[MattD30]

...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...

Does that ring a bell with anyone?

Gavelkind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind

Yes definitely Gravelkind. A system of inheritance of land tenure used mainly in Kent. I've seen it before in many other Kent Wills.

Matt

[MattD30]

...And as touching my mesuage wherein I nowe dwell in

[Ch?lham] Aforeseid w(i)^th all the landes & other heredytam(en)^tes thereto

belongyng I wyll y^t Agnes my wief shall have the same

duryng her lief kepyng the rep(ar)ac(i)ons & payeng the Lordes

rent  And after her deceasse I will y^t y^e same

shall remayn to Will(ia)m Rob(er)t & the elder John maxsed my

sones ^equaly betwene them to be devyded^ & to the heires ^[males?]^ of there bodyes laufullye begotten &...


The following section, containing the crossing out, is very difficult.

He covers what is to happen if any of his children die without issue males of his body lawfully begotten.

It finishes with a phrase:

...accordyng to the [?] [?] of [Gavelfynd?]...

Does that ring a bell with anyone?

I wonder if the missing word in that last bit could be "law" as in "the law of gravelkind" or perhaps "custom" or "traditions"?

[MattD30]

Many, many, many thanks to Everyone who's helped with this Will, especially HD. I think Wills are a really useful resource and it is so annoying when you can't quite make something out for certain. When I knew what the extracts said I could actually see the words! Some of them were so obvious I don't know how I missed them before, perhaps it was just a case of not being 100% certain.

Anyhow many thanks again for the help. I'll be posting something else sometime soon but this will be a lot clearer I promise.

Best Wishes to everyone who helped.

Matt

[MattD30]

Mentioned in Image 3:

1.   ...all the rest of my son Willyams Children...

2.   ...my son Johns doughter...    [not named]

3.   ...John my yongest son...

4 & 5.   ...Rob(er)t my son & my eldest son John...

6.   ...my son Will(ia)m...

7.   ...John [Page?] my s(er)v(a)nt...

Is it clear what order his children were born in from this? In line 3 John is described as "my youngest son" yet in line 5 it says "my eldest son John". Do you think Robert is the eldest son with John being the youngest, with William in the middle?

Matt

[horselydown86]

1.  Yes, I would interpret ferm as farm.

2.  Regarding the birth order, I think he has two sons named John.

John is the eldest, then (in some unknown order) come Robert, William & Edward, followed by John the youngest.

He is careful to qualify any mention of a John by adding eldest/youngest (unless referring to one of John's children, which might not be ambiguous).

ADDED:

Although, on looking again, it's possible that the references to eldest/youngest are relative only to the Johns, and not to the other boys.

I don't think we can draw definite conclusions, beyond that there were two Johns.

[MattD30]

1.  Yes, I would interpret ferm as farm.

2.  Regarding the birth order, I think he has two sons named John.

John is the eldest, then (in some unknown order) come Robert, William & Edward, followed by John the youngest.

He is careful to qualify any mention of a John by adding eldest/youngest (unless referring to one of John's children, which might not be ambiguous).

ADDED:

Although, on looking again, it's possible that the references to eldest/youngest are relative only to the Johns, and not to the other boys.

I don't think we can draw definite conclusions, beyond that there were two Johns.

Hi thanks for that. It's interesting that there are [possibly] two Johns, but not the first time I've seen this happen.

I've been looking through the Canterbury Wills database and there are a number of other Maxsted wills which I think will be worth looking at as they may be relatives. These include: Agnes Maxsted (1553), John Maxsted (1544), and Thomas Maxsted (1535).

There is also a will in 1598 for William Fyfield which might be related to the William Fyfield mentioned in this Will.

Now I have some details with which to draw up a basic family tree I should be able to build up a better picture of this family.

Matt

[horselydown86]

There is also a will in 1598 for William Fyfield which might be related to the William Fyfield mentioned in this Will.

I don't remember a Fyfield.

We did have William and Luce ffyliver.